From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
To: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ppc64le save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable (Was: HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE)
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:43:33 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180309084333.23287074@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180227160924.GA19111@lst.de>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:09:24 +0100
Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 01:12:37PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > I think that this is not enough. You need to also implement
> > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() for powerpc defined as __weak in
> > kernel/stacktrace.c.
>
> So here is my initial proposal. I'd really like to get the successful
> exit stricter, i.e. hit the initial stack value exactly instead of just
> a window. Also, the check for kernel code looks clumsy IMHO. IOW:
> Comments more than welcome!
>
> Most of it is Copy&Waste, nonetheless:
:)
>
> Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@suse.de>
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index d534ed901538..e08af49e71d0 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> #include <linux/export.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/task_stack.h>
> #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
> #include <asm/ptrace.h>
> #include <asm/processor.h>
> @@ -76,3 +77,58 @@ save_stack_trace_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, struct stack_trace *trace)
> save_context_stack(trace, regs->gpr[1], current, 0);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(save_stack_trace_regs);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> +int
> +save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(struct task_struct *tsk,
> + struct stack_trace *trace)
Just double checking this is called under the task_rq_lock, so its safe
to call task_stack_page() as opposed to try_get_task_stack()
> +{
> + unsigned long sp;
> + unsigned long stack_page = (unsigned long)task_stack_page(tsk);
> + /* the last frame (unwinding first) may not yet have saved its LR onto the stack. */
> + int firstframe = 1;
> +
> + if (tsk == current)
> + sp = current_stack_pointer();
> + else
> + sp = tsk->thread.ksp;
> +
> + if (sp < stack_page + sizeof(struct thread_struct)
> + || sp > stack_page + THREAD_SIZE - STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD)
> + return 1;
Some of this is already present in validate_sp(), it also validates
irq stacks, should we just reuse that?
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + unsigned long *stack = (unsigned long *) sp;
> + unsigned long newsp, ip;
> +
> + newsp = stack[0];
> + /* Stack grows downwards; unwinder may only go up */
> + if (newsp <= sp)
> + return 1;
> +
> + if (newsp >= stack_page + THREAD_SIZE)
> + return 1; /* invalid backlink, too far up! */
> +
> + /* Examine the saved LR: it must point into kernel code. */
> + ip = stack[STACK_FRAME_LR_SAVE];
> + if ( (ip & 0xEFFF000000000000) != CONFIG_KERNEL_START
> + && !firstframe)
> + return 1;
> + firstframe = 0;
> +
> + if (!trace->skip)
> + trace->entries[trace->nr_entries++] = ip;
> + else
> + trace->skip--;
> +
> + if (newsp > stack_page + THREAD_SIZE - STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD)
> + break; /* hit the window for last frame */
> +
> + if (trace->nr_entries >= trace->max_entries)
> + return -E2BIG;
> +
> + sp = newsp;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE */
>
Looks good to me otherwise.
Acked-by: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-08 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-04 15:25 [PATCH v2] kernel/module_64.c: Add REL24 relocation support of livepatch symbols Kamalesh Babulal
2017-10-05 6:56 ` Naveen N . Rao
2017-10-05 12:43 ` Torsten Duwe
2017-10-06 5:43 ` Kamalesh Babulal
2017-10-11 9:44 ` Kamalesh Babulal
2017-10-06 5:57 ` Kamalesh Babulal
2017-10-17 14:47 ` Torsten Duwe
2017-10-18 6:17 ` Kamalesh Babulal
2017-10-20 12:07 ` Torsten Duwe
2017-10-21 0:59 ` Balbir Singh
2017-10-23 8:19 ` Kamalesh Babulal
2017-12-12 11:39 ` [PATCH] On ppc64le we HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE Torsten Duwe
2017-12-12 12:12 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-12-12 13:02 ` Torsten Duwe
2018-02-27 16:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] ppc64le save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable (Was: HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE) Torsten Duwe
2018-03-08 21:43 ` Balbir Singh [this message]
2018-03-09 15:54 ` Torsten Duwe
2017-12-12 14:05 ` [PATCH] On ppc64le we HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-15 9:40 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-18 2:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-18 3:39 ` Balbir Singh
2017-12-18 4:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-18 5:33 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-18 18:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-19 2:46 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-19 11:28 ` Torsten Duwe
2017-12-19 21:46 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-21 12:10 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-12-23 4:00 ` Josh Poimboeuf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180309084333.23287074@gmail.com \
--to=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=duwe@lst.de \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).